Marriage and discrimination

Hmmm. I had a longish response this morning to Carstonio and Lepidopteryx, but it appears to have been screened out for some reason. Oh, well - guess we'll see if it appears later.

Climacus,
The day we met, my husband had been sterile for years and I was menopausal. We couldn't make a baby together if the fate of the free world depended on it. And no one in their right minds could look at our grey hairs and wrinkles and see us as prospective generators od ankle-biters.

We both work, sometimes both working multiple jobs.

If the purpose of marriage is to protect any children that the couple MIGHT create somewhere down the road, and to protect non-breadwinning spouses from ecomonic hardship, then it would make perfect sense for certain of the rights associated with marriage to be contingent on the production of offspring and on the number of paychecks being earned. But that isn't the case. When a couple files a marriage license with the state, ALL of the rights and responsibilities associated with the legal status of "married" instantly take effect. For example, I added my husband to my health insurance policy within an hour after the JP signed our license. That license was signed two days before closing on a house that we were buying in MY name (I was a first-time buyer, he was not, and my credit was better than his). The loan had been acquired using MY credit rating, it was in MY name only, but when we signed that license, the bank insisted on running his credit record as well before we could close, even though the loan was still in MY name.

Hmmm, the NT says nothing about gay sex? Au Contraire!!! Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples ("mutual masturbaters"). This probably is no concern to non-Christians or non-Jews but it should be a major concern to those religious types that believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries.

So we have a Christian God who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals. Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality? One might conclude from this that the Christian God would therefore approve same-sex unions ("mutual masterbating") since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed.

Note: A Google search using "mutual masturbating" as the search phrase will result in 40,200 "hits".

Hmmm, "Carstonio"??? Where have we seen that ID before.

"Generally speaking, it's impracticable and often impossible for either the society or the couples themselves to make a certain determination that the couple will not have offspring at some point. Therefore, it is still a defensible bet for society to make marriage incentives available to heterosexual couples generally."

Again, that seems to imply that we should deny legal marriage to gay couples simply because we can determine that they cannot have offspring on their own. And it's not a defensible bet because legal gay marriage wouldn't hinder procreation among straight couples.

"As for a "selective approach to legal rights", this is selective only in the sense that the way laws and social policies are tailored to particular goals can, and generally should, take into account prohibitive practical or constitutional obstacles to tailoring them more narrowly to those goals. There's nothing wrong or even unusual with that."

What goal is accomplished by denying legal marriage to gay couples because of their orientation? Or turning the question around, how would legal marriage for gays hinder any goals that you see marriage as trying to accomplish?

"it is a fact that women are traditionally more vulnerable to this outcome because, particularly in the absence of the partial counterweight that marriage provides, men have fewer disincentives than women to behave in this way and they can do so with less cost to themselves."

What specific counterweights and disincentives are you talking about? Those references are too vague?

"While it is true that some of the protections offered by marriage facially apply just to the partners, I expect that if you listed them out and investigated how they came to develop, you would find that the origins of many of them were linked to perceived problems related to gender disparity and/or procreation-related issues."

While you may be right, none of that would serve as an argument against gay marriage. Some gay couples do procreate with assistance, and some have children from previous straight relationships, and legal marriage for those couples would be important in protecting those children as well.

Carstonio

I disagree that the procreation argument implies that heterosexual couples who cannot or will not reproduce shouldn't, or do not deserve to, get married. Generally speaking, it's impracticable and often impossible for either the society or the couples themselves to make a certain determination that the couple will not have offspring at some point. Therefore, it is still a defensible bet for society to make marriage incentives available to heterosexual couples generally. A law is not inefficient or bad simply because there are individual cases in which its primary rationale turns out not to have been realized.

As for a "selective approach to legal rights", this is selective only in the sense that the way laws and social policies are tailored to particular goals can, and generally should, take into account prohibitive practical or constitutional obstacles to tailoring them more narrowly to those goals. There's nothing wrong or even unusual with that.

I did not "presume to know the propensities of all men" or "to know that men who do hit the road are motivated by nature." However, it is a fact that women are traditionally more vulnerable to this outcome because, particularly in the absence of the partial counterweight that marriage provides, men have fewer disincentives than women to behave in this way and they can do so with less cost to themselves. This is not to say that the typical man is untrustworthy, just that the society has traditionally witnessed the incidence of these particular unfavorable outcomes, and marriage laws evolved in large part as a result of this. There is a great deal of socioeconomic literature devoted to how marriage regulates and addresses disparities in behavioral incentives between men and women.

While it is true that some of the protections offered by marriage facially apply just to the partners, I expect that if you listed them out and investigated how they came to develop, you would find that the origins of many of them were linked to perceived problems related to gender disparity and/or procreation-related issues.

"Even if it were possible to definitively determine which heterosexual couples will never procreate in the future, it would be prohibitively burdensome and possibly unconstitutionally intrusive for the government to attempt to do so."

Regardless of what government does, the procreation argument still implies that couples who cannot or will not reproduce (regardless of sexual orientation) shouldn't get married, or that they do not deserve the legal rights involved with marriage. As stated in your post, the argument also implies a selective approach to legal rights, where one prevents infertile couples from marrying only in cases where doing so is convenient.

"One of the basic situations the scheme has evolved to address is the propensity of men to hit the road if they're surprised by an unplanned child, which is obviously bad for kids and mom alike"

Don't presume to know the propensities of all men, and don't presume to know that men who do hit the road are motivated by nature. That ignores the possibility that those men were in part conditioned by lousy upbringings, such as being the sons of deserting men. What incentive would civil marriage offer for men to accept responsibilities for their children? In particular, we can't assume that men are more tempted than women to desert their children, by nature or nurture.

Besides, even if we grant for argument's sake that you're right about men being inherently untrustworthy when it comes to children, what does that have to do with whether gay marriage should be legal? Some of the protections offered by marriage as a legal instrument apply to the partners only and not to children, and these can apply both to straight couples and to gay couples.

Carstonio, it's not true that "The procreation argument against gay marriage is inevitably an argument against marriage for straight couples who are infertile by circumstance or by choice." Supposedly infertile couples sometimes become fertile, or turn out to have been fertile enough all along, etc. Even if it were possible to definitively determine which heterosexual couples will never procreate in the future, it would be prohibitively burdensome and possibly unconstitutionally intrusive for the government to attempt to do so. So (presumed) infertile heterosexual couples fare differently than homosexual couples under procreation-based arguments.

Lepidopteryx, you said "If it's about the kids, why not just only allow couples the benefits associated with marriage AFTER they have produced offspring?" The reason, which should be obvious, is that civil marriage laws have evolved in large part as an incentive scheme to get people (primarily men) to accept legal responsibilities that offer protection to their spouses and any children. One of the basic situations the scheme has evolved to address is the propensity of men to hit the road if they're surprised by an unplanned child, which is obviously bad for kids and mom alike. Can you see why the scheme wouldn't work as well if society lowered the incentive to marry until *after* children arrive on the scene?

CCNL1, if it is "of course wrong" to "associate [homosexual activity] ... with the spread of AIDS", then many scientists and public health bodies, including the World Heath Organisation, have been wrong in that way. Research has repeatedly shown a disproportionate link between homosexual activity to the spread of HIV/AIDS, which is not surprising since both anal sex and a high number of sexual partners - both of which have strong correlations with homosexual activity - are among the highest-risk sexual behaviors for HIV transmission. That's not a value judgment, just an empirical reality.

fr ccnl1:

>...From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay sexual activity is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex sexual defects.
Some defects are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies, show it outwardly as alluded to in the following synopsis:...

I suggest that (a) you get the true FACTS about glbts from reputable groups, such as the AMA and APA, and discard the garbage that the following CULTS spew: the afa, the frc, the fotf and the laughable "cwa".

(b). MYOB.

"Same-sex marriage, however, is the moral aberration. Marriage is built on the gender difference--leading to procreation. That is the moral norm."

Since homosexuality and gay marriage aren't inherently harmful to others or to society, Kessler has no basis for claiming that either is a "moral aberration." What is prevalent or not prevalent has nothing to do with what is moral or not moral.

We can't assume that procreation is inherently moral. (I'm not advocating the opposite assumption, but merely saying that deeming procreation to be either moral or immoral is a subjective judgment.) The procreation argument against gay marriage is inevitably an argument against marriage for straight couples who are infertile by circumstance or by choice.

Once again, Homosexuality 101:

The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activities, married or not, to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay sexual activity is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex sexual defects.

Some defects are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies, show it outwardly as alluded to in the following synopsis:

From Wikipedia:
"Biology and sexual orientation is research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental.

Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications. [5]"

"There are several practical reasons, few of which apply to gays: uniting in childrearing, making a homemaker equal to a breadwinner, and combining the distinctive features of males and females to each other's benefit."

You're talking about a social idea and not a legal one. Government's role in marriage is limited to defining the legal rights and responsibilities for the partners. Government has no place in deciding whether individuals are better off in opposite-sex couples or same-sex couples.

The National Organization for Marriage argues that legalizing gay marriage will lead to fatherless families. What is the basis for that claim? Does NOM believe that fathers will abandon their families for gay lovers?

Why does marriage exist?
There are several practical reasons, few of which apply to gays: uniting in childrearing, making a homemaker equal to a breadwinner, and combining the distinctive features of males and females to each other's benefit.
It's true that there are marriages between DINK's (double income, no kids) that are in practical terms not much different than gay marriages would be. But DINK's aren't the reason marriage exists.
Since it would be very difficult to repeal gay marriage once it got passed, I don't buy the reasoning that we should pass it just because we can't think outside the box enough to show why heterosexual marriage shouldn't imply homosexual.

Posted by: WmarkW

If it's about the kids, why not just only allow couples the benefits associated with marriage AFTER they have produced offspring?
If it's about equalizing homemakers and breadwinners, then only let the benfits apply to couples who fit breadwinner/homemaker model.
Other than a penis and a vagina, what distinctive features of males and females are you referring to?

Alex511 wrote:

"Then, pray tell, why the Eastern European "christians" always show up at Pride events, uninvited, and wail and scream like banshees?> Why do they take it upon themselves to MURDER a gay man, and then flee the country, like what happened in Sacramento CA in 2007???"

Putting up with offensive speech is something that most people tolerate in this country. It is the price of freedom. Why do men show up half and more naked at many Pride events? That's offensive to many as well.

As for murder, let's hope such miscreants are caught and punished no matter the status of the victim. I can assure you that if the majority bore that ill will toward homosexuals and lesbians, the body count would be much higher.

As usual, Colorado dog with his anti Christian bias hits this forum with his typical straw man argument.

Marriage is and has always been a man-woman institution. To try and equate homosexual relationships to what the higher potential men and women have together is a non starter.

It's pounding a square peg into a round hole- and no matter how hard you try, it does not make any sense.

fr edbyronadams:

>...We have no interest in doing real injury to others who want to commit themselves to each other but see little injury in noting that those same sex unions are outside the traditional meaning of "marriage".

Then, pray tell, why the Eastern European "christians" always show up at Pride events, uninvited, and wail and scream like banshees?> Why do they take it upon themselves to MURDER a gay man, and then flee the country, like what happened in Sacramento CA in 2007???

My WIFE and I have been married since June 2008, and our same-gender MARRIAGE hurts absolutely no one.

Mr. Kessler, doesn't it make more sense to start out by soliciting the best arguments in favor of treating same-sex unions the *same* as interracial unions, given that that would constitute a change to the prevailing status quo?

ColoradoDog, what does retaining the customary definition of marriage have to do with "declining back to the dark ages" (whatever you think the dark ages were)? Were the "dark ages" the last time that our society was characterized by overwhelming adherence to the customary definition? No, it still is.

Why does marriage exist?

There are several practical reasons, few of which apply to gays: uniting in childrearing, making a homemaker equal to a breadwinner, and combining the distinctive features of males and females to each other's benefit.

It's true that there are marriages between DINK's (double income, no kids) that are in practical terms not much different than gay marriages would be. But DINK's aren't the reason marriage exists.

Since it would be very difficult to repeal gay marriage once it got passed, I don't buy the reasoning that we should pass it just because we can't think outside the box enough to show why heterosexual marriage shouldn't imply homosexual.

My sense is that the American public is fully willing to endow same sex couples with all the rights and responsibilities of committed couples but are unwilling to change a centuries old meaning of the word "marriage".

We have no interest in doing real injury to others who want to commit themselves to each other but see little injury in noting that those same sex unions are outside the traditional meaning of "marriage".

I fear that after "conservative Christians" politically defeat same sex marriages, interracial marriages will be next on their list and, in those areas with a white majority, they won't need a huge, multi-state Mormon PAC to do their bidding like they did with like Proposition 8 in California.

Our society is declining back to the dark ages in the name of poor old Jesus.